JTS33
join:2003-05-03
USA
| Is McAfee VirusScan v4.5 still acceptable?
Is McAfee VirusScan v4.51 that's auto-updated with the latest SuperDAT (scan engine + virus definition file) still an acceptable anti-virus solution?
I've heard it's just as good at detecting viruses, just without all the bloat and graphical enhancements in the newer versions that hog up system resources. Is this true? |
|
Tablet
Premium
join:2003-01-15
Czech | I don't know about version 4.5, but last time I used McAfee 7.03 and it was very good indeed, without unnecessary bloat. So I'd recommend to go with that, definitely detection abilities of 7.03 are the same as compared with version 8. |
|
Graham1
join:2003-01-31
| reply to JTS33
I used to use VirusScan 4.5.1 SP1 at work (not sure how different it is from the home edition) but it was awfull on resources (around 50mb). Since updating to VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0, drastically reduces the amount of resources used. Again, I don't know how different the Corporate and Home versions are, but 7.x was a vast improvement  |
|
shanti_baba
join:2002-11-20
Montreal, QC | reply to JTS33
With new blended threat viruses, 4.5.1 is sufficient, but, not ideal. However, you really should plan to move towards 7. It is much better, and less resource intensive. |
|
JTS33
join:2003-05-03
USA
| I've been using McAfee 4.51 just as a manual scanner (didn't install the "auto protect" portion of the software).
I have a subscription to McAfee 8 through my ISP that I haven't started using. Is it a lot worse than 7 in terms of unnecessary bloat and resource usage? |
|
Randy Bell
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA
| said by JTS33  :
I've been using McAfee 4.51 just as a manual scanner (didn't install the "auto protect" portion of the software).
Do you use another AV as your resident realtime scanner? The realtime monitor {RTM} of an AV is a vital part {the most important part} of the protection it offers .. without the RTM running at all times, you are unprotected from new malware coming into your box through various vectors or points of entry. 
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13) |
|
JTS33
join:2003-05-03
USA
| said by Randy Bell :
Do you use another AV as your resident realtime scanner? The realtime monitor {RTM} of an AV is a vital part {the most important part} of the protection it offers .. without the RTM running at all times, you are unprotected from new malware coming into your box through various vectors or points of entry.
Currently, I don't run a resident realtime scanner. I'm behind a hardware SPI firewall with no open ports, I don't use instant messaging, and for e-mail I only use web-based e-mail with its own virus scanning of attachments. I keep XP updated through Windows Update, and if I download a file, I fire up VirusScan 4.51's on-demand scanner. In this case, do you feel there's still a compelling advantage in a resident realtime scanner?
I noticed how much NAV2004 slowed down my friend's PC after he installed it (disk access becomes bogged down in general), and didn't want the same effect on my PC. I do have a subscription to McAfee 8 already, but there appears to be a lot of complaints about it. |
|
gracie
Geek Goddess
Premium
join:2003-07-15
confusion
| said by JTS33 :
In this case, do you feel there's still a compelling advantage in a resident realtime scanner?
probably most here will yell "YES", so i'll chime in with a contrary view similar to yours. on my new super-duper powerful computer, i AM running NAV real-time to try it out, but on my other computers, i never run my AVs real-time, just do a scheduled scan at noon and 9 p.m. every day. i, too, have the boxes pretty buttoned-down, follow good 'safe hex' practices, am behind both a router spi firewall and a software firewall, etc. and honestly do not believe i'm getting a whole lot more protection with the realtime monitor. on my other computers, realtime just eats too many resources to be worth it. in 15 years of computing, never got a nasty (fingers, toes, and eyes crossed.)
but when i advise others, i always strongly advise enabling realtime monitoring, because few people are as careful as we are .
--
graciella! "not tonight dear, I have DSL."
Creating SuperOrganizations Worldwide |
|
Allnew
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-01
Denmark- EU.
clubs:
| reply to JTS33
said by JTS33 :
I've been using McAfee 4.51 just as a manual scanner (didn't install the "auto protect" portion of the software).
I have a subscription to McAfee 8 through my ISP that I haven't started using. Is it a lot worse than 7 in terms of unnecessary bloat and resource usage?
I had the impression that VS8 actually was very light on resources. Read it in a few reviews somewhere. Depends of the system i guess.:) |
|
rshoch
Premium
join:2003-09-01
Santa Ana, CA | reply to gracie
Yes Man.
Immune system evolution has favored real-time over less expensive on-demand. |
|
Randy Bell
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA
| reply to JTS33
Re: Is McAfee VirusScan v4.5 still acceptable?
Use of realtime monitor is up to you, but I think there's a reason why most {if not all} AVs enable RTM by default.
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13) |
|
Allnew
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-01
Denmark- EU.
clubs:
| said by Randy Bell :
Use of realtime monitor is up to you, but I think there's a reason why most {if not all} AVs enable RTM by default.
You do have a point there Randy:D
I would not be without my RTM for sure.
--
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.Harlan Ellison (1934 - ) |
|
